More questions than answers to the diagnosis and management of cauda equina syndrome-Authors' reply

No abstract available

Understanding cauda equina syndrome: protocol for a UK multicentre prospective observational cohort study

IntroductionCauda equina syndrome (CES) is a potentially devastating condition caused by compression of the cauda equina nerve roots. This can result in bowel, bladder and sexual dysfunction plus lower limb weakness, numbness and pain. CES occurs infrequently, but has serious potential morbidity and medicolegal consequences. This study aims to identify and describe the presentation and management of patients with CES in the UK.Methods and analysisUnderstanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) is a prospective and collaborative multicentre cohort study of adult patients with confirmed CES managed at specialist spinal centres in the UK. Participants will be identified using neurosurgical and orthopaedic trainee networks to screen referrals to spinal centres. Details of presentation, investigations, management and service usage will be recorded. Both patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures will be assessed for 1 year after surgery. This will establish the incidence of CES, current investigation and management practices, and adherence to national standards of care. Outcomes will be stratified by clinical presentation and patient management. Accurate and up to date information about the presentation, management and outcome of patients with CES will inform standards of service design and delivery for this important but infrequent condition.Ethics and disseminationUCES received a favourable ethical opinion from the South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 02 (Reference: 18/SS/0047; IRAS ID: 233515). All spinal centres managing patients with CES in the UK will be encouraged to participate in UCES. Study results will be published in medical journals and shared with local participating sites.Trial registration numberISRCTN16828522; Pre-results

Understanding cauda equina syndrome: protocol for a UK multicentre prospective observational cohort study

IntroductionCauda equina syndrome (CES) is a potentially devastating condition caused by compression of the cauda equina nerve roots. This can result in bowel, bladder and sexual dysfunction plus lower limb weakness, numbness and pain. CES occurs infrequently, but has serious potential morbidity and medicolegal consequences. This study aims to identify and describe the presentation and management of patients with CES in the UK.Methods and analysisUnderstanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) is a prospective and collaborative multicentre cohort study of adult patients with confirmed CES managed at specialist spinal centres in the UK. Participants will be identified using neurosurgical and orthopaedic trainee networks to screen referrals to spinal centres. Details of presentation, investigations, management and service usage will be recorded. Both patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures will be assessed for 1 year after surgery. This will establish the incidence of CES, current investigation and management practices, and adherence to national standards of care. Outcomes will be stratified by clinical presentation and patient management. Accurate and up to date information about the presentation, management and outcome of patients with CES will inform standards of service design and delivery for this important but infrequent condition.Ethics and disseminationUCES received a favourable ethical opinion from the South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 02 (Reference: 18/SS/0047; IRAS ID: 233515). All spinal centres managing patients with CES in the UK will be encouraged to participate in UCES. Study results will be published in medical journals and shared with local participating sites.Trial registration numberISRCTN16828522; Pre-results.</jats:sec

Outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant outbreak among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer in Europe: results from the retrospective, multicentre, OnCovid registry study

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57–77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19–0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16–0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17–0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09–0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15–0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14–0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. INTERPRETATION: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust

Presentation, management, and outcomes of cauda equina syndrome up to one year after surgery, using clinician and participant reporting: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

Background: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) results from nerve root compression in the lumbosacral spine, usually due to a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Evidence for management of CES is limited by its infrequent occurrence and lack of standardised clinical definitions and outcome measures. Methods: This is a prospective multi-centre observational cohort study of adults with CES in the UK. We assessed presentation, investigation, management, and all Core Outcome Set domains up to one year post-operatively using clinician and participant reporting. Univariable and multivariable associations with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and urinary outcomes were investigated. Findings: In 621 participants with CES, catheterisation for urinary retention was required pre-operatively in 31% (191/615). At discharge, only 13% (78/616) required a catheter. Median time to surgery from symptom onset was 3 days (IQR:1–8) with 32% (175/545) undergoing surgery within 48 h. Earlier surgery was associated with catheterisation (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.5–3.3) but not with admission ODI or radiological compression. In multivariable analyses catheter requirement at discharge was associated with pre-operative catheterisation (OR:10.6, 95%CI:5.8–20.4) and one-year ODI was associated with presentation ODI (r = 0.3, 95%CI:0.2–0.4), but neither outcome was associated with time to surgery or radiological compression. Additional healthcare services were required by 65% (320/490) during one year follow up. Interpretation: Post-operative functional improvement occurred even in those presenting with urinary retention. There was no association between outcomes and time to surgery in this observational study. Significant healthcare needs remained post-operatively. Funding: DCN Endowment Fund funded study administration. Castor EDC provided database use. No other study funding was received

Time-Dependent COVID-19 Mortality in Patients with Cancer: An Updated Analysis of the OnCovid Registry

Importance: Whether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined. Objective: To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: OnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (February to March 2020, April to June 2020, July to September 2020, October to December 2020, and January to February 2021) and across 2 major outbreaks (February to June 2020 and July 2020 to February 2021). Results: At data cutoff, 2795 consecutive patients were included, with 2634 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [18-77] years; 52.8% men). Eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependent improvement in 14-day case-fatality rate (CFR) with estimates of 29.8% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33) for February to March 2020; 20.3% (95% CI, 0.17-0.23) for April to June 2020; 12.5% (95% CI, 0.06-22.90) for July to September 2020; 17.2% (95% CI, 0.15-0.21) for October to December 2020; and 14.5% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) for January to February 2021 (all P &lt;.001) across the predefined phases. Compared with the second major outbreak, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak were more likely to be 65 years or older (974 of 1626 [60.3%] vs 564 of 1008 [56.1%]; P =.03), have at least 2 comorbidities (793 of 1626 [48.8%] vs 427 of 1008 [42.4%]; P =.001), and have advanced tumors (708 of 1626 [46.4%] vs 536 of 1008 [56.1%]; P &lt;.001). Complications of COVID-19 were more likely to be seen (738 of 1626 [45.4%] vs 342 of 1008 [33.9%]; P &lt;.001) and require hospitalization (969 of 1626 [59.8%] vs 418 of 1008 [42.1%]; P &lt;.001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (1004 of 1626 [61.7%] vs 501 of 1008 [49.7%]; P &lt;.001) during the first major outbreak. The 14-day CFRs for the first and second major outbreaks were 25.6% (95% CI, 0.23-0.28) vs 16.2% (95% CI, 0.13-0.19; P &lt;.001), respectively. After adjusting for country, sex, age, comorbidities, tumor stage and status, anti-COVID-19 and anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak had an increased risk of death at 14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.32) and 3 months (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51) compared with those diagnosed in the second outbreak. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this registry-based study suggest that mortality in patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 has improved in Europe; this improvement may be associated with earlier diagnosis, improved management, and dynamic changes in community transmission over time.

Prevalence and impact of COVID-19 sequelae on treatment and survival of patients with cancer who recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection: evidence from the OnCovid retrospective, multicentre registry study

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients’ death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4–57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28–329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113–148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18–2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45–8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35–2·02]). Interpretation: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust

Recognising contributions to work in research collaboratives: Guidelines for standardising reporting of authorship in collaborative research

Background Trainee research collaboratives (TRCs) have been revolutionary changes to the delivery of high-quality, multicentre research. The aim of this study was to define common roles in the conduct of collaborative research, and map these to academic competencies as set out by General Medical Council (GMC) in the United Kingdom. This will support trainers and assessors when judging academic achievements of those involved in TRC projects, and supports trainees by providing guidance on how to fulfil their role in these studies. Methods A modified Delphi process was followed. Electronic discussion with key stakeholders was undertaken to identify and describe common roles. These were refined and mapped to GMC educational domains and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship (ICJME) guidelines. The resulting roles and descriptions were presented to a face-to-face consensus meeting for voting. The agreed roles were then presented back to the electronic discussion group for approval. Results Electronic discussion generated six common roles. All of these were agreed in face-to-face meetings, where two further roles identified and described. All eight roles required skills that map to part of the academic requirements for surgical training in the UK. Discussion This paper presents a standardised framework for reporting authorship in collaborative group authored research publications. Linkage of collaborator roles to the ICMJE guidelines and GMC academic competency guidelines will facilitate incorporation into relevant training curricular and journal publication policies